Strengthening Economic Regulation of Water and Sanitation Services in the Philippines

1. Introduction

Abstract

Water supply and sanitation services in the Philippines have improved over the last decades, but major challenges remain in achieving universal access. Outside of Metro Manila, most service providers are neither financially nor technically capable of delivering the required services to a rapidly growing population. The multiple economic regulatory agencies for water supply and sanitation have different regulatory practices. Gaps and overlaps in mandate undermine their effectiveness. Improved economic regulation offers opportunities to incentivise utilities to perform effectively and efficiently.

1.1. Report overview and structure

Proposed legislation in the Philippines would establish both a consolidated economic regulator, the Water Regulatory Commission (WRC) and a new sector policy-making body, the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

In view of the proposed reform, this report aims to support improvements in the framework for economic regulation to promote the expansion and improvement of water supply and sanitation services in the Philippines. The report identifies priorities in the run-up to the proposed establishment of the Water Regulatory Commission and considers how this institution could be integrated in the current landscape, with multiple economic regulatory agencies for water utilities and water services, considerable overlap between those regulatory agencies’ mandates and some fairly large market segments that are not regulated or inadequately regulated. The report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 outlines recommended principles and objectives for tariff arrangements and identifies governance and performance framework gaps, which critically shape the feasibility of implementing various tariff models.

• Chapter 3 presents an overview of the options and considerations for aggregating water and sanitation services delivery in the Philippines.

• Chapter 4 provides recommendations on the development of a Centralised National Integrated Water Information System, including through investments in bulk metering and monitoring tools to improve data accuracy, as well as a set of policies, regulations and protocols to promote digitalised integrated information systems.

• Chapter 5 presents the main recommendations emerging from the report in a Roadmap for reform.

1.2. Overall context for the analysis

Substantial progress has been made in the water supply and sanitation sector. Since 2023, there has been concerted sector effort and support from development partners, with several new policies and measures put in place. Water supply and sanitation services in the Philippines have improved over the last decades but major challenges remain in achieving universal access. The Philippines is projected to experience significant demographic changes by 2055 which will have profound implications for water and sanitation systems. The population is set to increase from 109 million in 2020 to 139 million by 2055 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2024[1]). Urban areas will face heightened pressure on water supply and wastewater infrastructure, requiring substantial investment to meet the needs of a larger and more urbanised population. Already, in 2020, 54% of the population lived in urban areas, an increase of 3% since 2015 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022[2]).

A widening gap between the demand and supply of water and sanitation services has already been highlighted in the Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP) 2019-2030, a national action plan to achieve universal access by 2030. Under the overarching context of increasing pressure on water and other environmental resources, rapid urbanisation and growing variability in rainfall patterns and water availability, planned service provision arrangements need to provide the rapidly increasing Filipino population with high-quality water and sanitation services in an equitable manner whilst preserving the environment. Without significant measures, a water crisis will likely be experienced in some parts of the country by 2040 (NEDA, 2021[3]). The demand-supply gap varies considerably across the national territory, with pressures most acute in rapidly urbanising areas and regions dependent on stressed water sources.

Service providers will need to make substantial investments. The Philippines Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP) estimates that USD 18 billion (PHP 1.07 trillion1) would need to be invested over 11 years (2020–2030) to achieve universal access to safe water supply and sanitation services by 2030 (NEDA, 2021[3]; DENR-WRMO, 2024[4]).

The Philippine government is seeking to make important changes to oversight and governance of the water sector. Proposed legislation would establish both a consolidated economic regulator, the Water Regulatory Commission (WRC), as well as a new sector policy-making body, the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

Economic regulation has not been harnessed to incentivise utilities to perform effectively and efficiently. Economic regulation can be defined as the rules and institutions that set, monitor, enforce and change the allowed tariffs and service standards for water supply and sanitation providers. Effective and consistently enforced economic regulation drives good utility performance and water security and provides solutions to major challenges of the water supply and sanitation sector: natural monopoly, asymmetric information and external impacts (on human health and the environment). The primary objective of water sector economic regulation is to simulate competitive market conditions while protecting consumers. A key focus is ensuring that providers do not overcharge, while also maintaining water prices (or tariffs) at sustainable levels that are not set too low. The goal of water regulators is therefore often twofold, guaranteeing both the sustainability of supply and the affordability of demand in the water sector of a country or region.

International experience shows that these regulatory functions can be performed effectively under a variety of institutional models, including dedicated independent regulators, regulation by contract and ministerial oversight combined with systematic performance benchmarking. The appropriate model depends on country circumstances, including the structure of the sector, the capacity of existing institutions and the maturity of information systems. In the Philippine context, characterised by a highly fragmented sector with multiple agencies exercising overlapping regulatory functions and a large number of small service providers, consolidating economic regulation in a single body offers a means of harmonising currently inconsistent tariff-setting regimes and establishing comparable performance data across providers. These objectives could be advanced through the proposed establishment of the Water Regulatory Commission or, in the interim, through strengthened coordination, benchmarking and regulatory harmonisation.

Water and sanitation services are currently delivered through multiple service providers, overseen by several economic regulatory agencies, with different regulatory practices. They have overlapping mandates and, in some cases, inherent conflicts of interest. Improved regulatory arrangements could help achieve multiple objectives that are pressing for the water and sanitation sector in the Philippines, including through the proposed establishment of the Water Regulatory Commission (WRC) or through better coordination between existing regulatory agencies. These objectives include achieving financial viability, improving service quality, improving efficiency, ensuring equity, including through expanding service coverage and delivering environmental sustainability.

1.3. Water and sanitation services are delivered by multiple providers

1.3.1. Water services are spread across different actors

Under the Local Government Code, primary responsibility for water supply services rests with Local Government Units (LGUs). In practice, services are delivered through a wide range of providers and institutional arrangements. LGUs may create water districts, directly deliver services through an LGU-run utility or enter into an agreement with a private operator. In areas not reached by water districts, LGU-run utilities or private operators, water services are managed by users and communities through cooperatives, Barangay Waterworks and Sanitation Associations (BWSA) and Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Associations (RWSA), as described in Table 1.1.

Most of the Philippine population (92%) has access to safe water, according to the 2020 Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Annual Poverty Indicator Survey. Of these, about half (54%) have access to piped water systems (Level III) which are considered safely managed services and a quarter still depend on protected wells or developed springs (Level I). The remaining 8% of the population (around 9 million people) still do not have access to safe water (DENR-WRMO, 2024[4]). Statistics from 2015 found that approximately 332 municipalities were considered waterless, meaning that more than half of their residents did not have access to safe water (NEDA, 2021[3]).

Table 1.1. Service providers by type

Water Service Provider Type		Description	No WSP	Level III providers
Water District	Water District	A quasi-public corporation formed by the LGU under the Provincial Water Utilities Act for the operations and maintenance of water supply and wastewater management system, which has been issued a Certificate of Conditional Conformance by LWUA.	742	714
	JV Water Districts	A limited number of water districts have signed Joint Venture agreements with the private sector to provide water supply and sanitation services.
LGU-Run Utilities	LGU-Run Utilities	A water supply system owned and operated by the provincial, city or municipal government	4 445	1 526
Private Utilities	Homeowners’ Association	An organisation that operates and maintains a water supply system and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, now Human Settlements Adjudication Commission	395	147
	Real Estate Developer	A real estate developer operating a water supply system that provides potable water to lot owners within its boundaries	186	171
	Unnamed WSPs	A service provider of at least 15 households and which is not registered formally with any government agency	8 862	213
	Industrial Locator	An industrial estate operating a water supply system for its locators in a special economic zone	50	43
	Peddler	A non-pipe water service providers operator that extracts water and supplies and delivers water by the container	345	36
	Ship Chandler	A water supply operator providing water to ships	4	1
	Private Operator	A sole proprietorship, corporation or private entity formed under the general business and corporation laws of the country for the operations and maintenance of water supply systems	2 120	1 088
Community-Based Organisation	Barangay Water and Sanitation Associations (BWSAs)	A non-stock and non-profit organisation that owns, operates and maintains a water system and sanitation facilities in the barangay. A barangay is a small territorial and administrative district forming the most local level of government.	1 263	26
	Rural Water Supply Associations (RWSAs)	A non-stock and non-profit organisation formed by a group of persons in a defined area, such as a street, a group of houses, a sitio or a purok to establish and maintain water supply and sanitation.	7 919	1 275
	Cooperative	A membership organisation formed under the Cooperative Code of the Philippines to operate and maintain water supply systems and registered with the Cooperative Development Authority	1 544	818
Total number			28 281	6 334

Notes: Local Government Unit (LGU), Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA)

Source: (NEDA, 2021[3])

Water is provided across the country through over 28 000 service providers. While there is no single approved database, the National Water Resource Board (NWRB) Listahang Tubig (Water Register)2 represents a first attempt to take stock of service providers. The database is updated on a rolling basis as new information is provided by regulators, though comprehensive national coverage has been uneven over time.

A small share (roughly 20%) of the total number of service providers serves 60% of the population. Water districts and LGU-run utilities, represent nearly one fifth of service providers and serve 40% of the population (DENR-WRMO, 2024[4]). In the capital city, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) is responsible for providing services to about 17% of the country’s population (some 20 million people), through its concessionaires in 23 cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, Rizal and parts of Cavite provinces.

Four times as many service providers (the remaining 80%) serve over a third of the population. Of this, 31% are unnamed private service providers and a further 28% are community-based Barangay Water and Sanitation providers. Many of these are unregulated and poorly managed private or community-based facilities. More than half of service providers (55%) in the database supply through level 1 (point source) service, which is through a protected well or a developed spring with an outlet (rather than through a piped service to housing) (NEDA, 2021[3]).This underscores the urgent need for a coherent economic regulatory framework to support improvement and expansion of services.

A particular characteristic of the Philippines is that there are no exclusivity rules within service areas. The Philippine Supreme Court ruled the granting of exclusive franchises to public utilities as unconstitutional in order to promote competition, consumer choice and universal access.3 Water service provision is covered by this rule as it is a public service. In practice, however, this contributes to the proliferation of small service providers and often leads to overlapping provision of service, with multiple in one zone alongside large gaps in service coverage. One notable example is in Panglao in Bohol Province, where there are at least five water utilities providing water supply services to its population of just under 40 000 people (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022[5]). The average percentage of the population in a service area covered by a water service provider was reported at 27% under the Listahang Tubig database, highlighting significant scope for expansion or consolidation (NEDA, 2021[3]).

1.3.2. Sanitation has suffered from low investment

Under the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, water service providers are expected to supply potable water and to contribute to sanitation services, including septage management, desludging and sewerage. The extent to which providers deliver on this mandate varies considerably and is examined further in Chapter 3. A comprehensive assessment of coverage, implementation arrangements and performance is currently constrained by the absence of systematic data on sanitation service provision outside Metro Manila, a gap the recommendations in Chapter 4 seek to address.

Sanitation service delivery is complex and suffers from a lack of investment and poor implementation, despite significant government support. This is linked to institutional fragmentation and disjointed efforts to improve sanitation services in the absence of an overarching framework and master plan. The PSA reports that about 94% of the population has access to improved sanitation, which means that human waste is separated from human contact (whether through piped sewerage systems, pit latrine or other approaches). Many households have toilets, though a significant number of these toilet facilities are not compliant with the standards of the Philippine Sanitation Code (DENR-WRMO, 2024[4]).

To be considered safely managed sanitation services, wastewater and septage (the sludge content of the septic tanks) from sanitation systems should be treated and disposed of properly. Outside Metro Manila, the piped sewerage system remains limited and generally the Philippines has limited capacity to collect and treat faecal sludge, despite widespread use of on-site sanitation. In addition, about 3 million people use unimproved toilets and 4 million still practice open defecation. In 2010, the effects of poor sanitation were estimated to result in an economic loss exceeding USD 1.3 billion (PHP 78 billion4) per year, 55 deaths per day and severe damage to ecosystems and biodiversity (DPWH, 2010[6]).

1.3.3. Cost recovery and performance remain a challenge

Most service providers lack sufficient financial and technical capacity, or both, to deliver required services to a rapidly growing population. Investment in water supply and sanitation services remains low. Commercial finance is generally available to creditworthy providers but many service providers are not able to access commercial financing due to low financial viability, as well as governance challenges and limited institutional capacity. Low investment results in weak performance and inadequate services from water districts and LGU-run utilities, contributing to the proliferation of small, unregulated and poorly managed community-based facilities.

Water districts and MWSS through its two concessionaires demonstrate the highest performance. Performance remains challenging for smaller water districts. While high-performing water districts still have room to expand service, they may not have the right incentives to do so. The performance of LGU-run utilities is a significant concern; it is impacted by their legal and institutional arrangements and the political environment in which they operate. Tariff-setting rests with local boards, accounts are frequently not ring-fenced from the general LGU budget and electoral considerations can weigh on tariff decisions. As a result, many LGUs do not set tariffs that allow for cost-recovery levels, and for some LGU-run utilities, tariffs cannot recover even operations and maintenance costs, leading to reliance on government subsidies. Strengthening governance, institutional structures and the regulatory framework, including bringing LGU-run utilities within scope of the broader regulatory framework, could have a significant impact on their performance, alongside investment in physical assets.

In addition, a lack of scale in service provision contributes to higher costs, linked for example to parallel procurement of materials and difficulties for service providers in attracting qualified personnel (this is particularly true in small island environments, where costs are significantly higher).

Service providers currently face challenging economics for expanding services to more remote areas of the country. This can be because tariff methodologies cannot provide for cost recovery, or there is too much risk associated with such investments, due to perceived instability in the regulatory regime. Cost-effective infrastructure investment requires a level of certainty, in terms of the regulatory framework and investors’ ability to earn a predictable return.

These disparities are most acute in poorer and rural areas. While Metro Manila and a few urbanised regions approach universal access, access is much lower in some regions. These shortfalls contribute to health risks and constrain socio-economic progress.

Comparing performance across types of service providers is difficult due to the lack of data and particularly lack of comparable data. Available data on service performance does not cover all service providers. In addition, as the capacity of various regulatory authorities is limited, data that is self-reported by service providers is often not verified, which raises issues regarding its accuracy.

1.4. Important efforts to address regulatory complexity have been made

1.4.1. Recent progress to strengthen the policy landscape

The last three years have seen a concerted effort across the Philippine water sector to address long-standing challenges in governance, coordination and service delivery. This momentum reflects a strong push by sector actors, supported by development partners, and has begun to deliver reforms whose cumulative impact is significant. Many of these advances were set out throughout the National Dialogue on Water and are reflected in the analysis and recommendations that follow.

Three institutional shifts are particularly noteworthy. First, since 2023, the LWUA, the NWRB and the MWSS-RO have been placed under the administrative oversight of the DENR-WRMO, with the explicit objective of harmonising processes and reducing gaps and conflicts across regulators. This constitutes a meaningful step towards greater coherence in the institutional architecture for economic regulation. Second, major water projects across government agencies are now channelled through the INFRACOM Sub-Committee on Water Resources (SCWR), providing a coordinating mechanism that, while leaving implementation with line agencies, introduces a degree of strategic alignment that did not previously exist. Third, an active policy agenda has been pursued across regulatory, investment and service delivery dimensions, with a number of legal instruments adopted since 2023 and several more in development (Table 1.2).

Within this policy effort, several instruments are directly relevant to economic regulation and service aggregation. The Unified Resource Allocation Framework (URAF), adopted by the NEDA Board in October 2024, establishes a system for rationalised investment in the sector, prioritising clustered and multi-LGU projects, especially for bulk water, septage and sewerage. The Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 2024 on the establishment of Local Economic Enterprises for water supply and sanitation in LGUs imposes full cost-recovery tariffs as a condition for grant financing, introducing an element of commercial discipline into LGU-operated systems. A supplemental DILG-DOF Joint Memorandum Circular (No. 1, s. 2026), issued in February 2026, reinforces the objectives and implementation mechanisms of the JMC. Operationalisation nonetheless remains constrained by limited funding for roll-out and for the capacity development of LGUs and LGU-run utilities. A staged approach, informed by an assessment of utilities’ current capacities and supported at both national and local levels, will be needed to prepare utilities for the gradual implementation of full cost-recovery requirements. Alongside these, ongoing efforts to extend service to underserved areas, including eight WRMO programmes set to provide water to far-flung barangays, represent tangible delivery on the aggregation and universal access agendas.

These developments illustrate substantive progress on coordination, investment rationalisation and the policy framework for tariff-setting. They have not, however, fully resolved the structural challenges around regulatory fragmentation. Administrative oversight under WRMO improves coordination across regulators, but it does not by itself reconcile overlapping mandates, harmonise tariff methodologies or close gaps in regulatory coverage, all of which require deeper reform of the regulatory architecture itself. The sections that follow examine these remaining challenges in more detail.

Table 1.2. Recent water sector policies and reforms

Theme	Policy	Issuing body	Date
Economic regulation and tariffs	Raw water pricing policy	NWRB	2024
	Bulk water regulation	NWRB	12/2024
	CPI-based Water Tariff Adjustment	LWUA, NWRB	Forthcoming
	Fixed water charge for missionary areas	LWUA, NWRB	Forthcoming
	Third Party Audit of Water Service Providers	LWUA, NWRB	Forthcoming
	Reservation of Critical Water Sources for PPP	NWRB	Forthcoming
Rationalising service delivery and infrastructure	Convergence of water supply with flood management	Office of the President	09/2024
	Establishment of Local Economic Enterprises for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMC No. 2, s. 2024)	DENR–NEDA–DILG–DBM–DOF	10/2024
	Aggregation of flood control projects		08/2025
	Supplemental guidelines on Local Economic Enterprises for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMC No. 1, s. 2026)	DILG–DOF	02/2026
Sector coordination	NIA–NWRB–WRMO MOA on multipurpose use of water	NIA, NWRB, WRMO	12/2023
	Unified Resource Allocation Framework (URAF, NEDA Board Resolution 41)	NEDA Board	10/2024
	Program Convergence Budgeting for Water	NEDA	2024–2026
Data & KPIs	Sanitation as a WSP KPI	NWRB	06/2023
	Provisional authority for drilling permittees		09/2024
	Registration of water district wells	LWUA, NWRB	11/2024

Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Water Resource Management Office.

1.4.2. Governance arrangements for the economic regulation of water supply and sanitation remain complex

One of the key issues for effective economic regulation in the water supply and sanitation sector in the Philippines is that regulators operate within a fragmented framework. While mandates for the main categories of providers are broadly delineated, overlaps and gaps persist in specific areas, notably the regulation of sanitation and septage services, bulk water supply and segments of the sector that fall outside any regulatory boundary. Some ambiguities have recently been clarified, for example through an Office of the Government Corporate Counsel opinion affirming LWUA’s jurisdiction over water districts with joint venture arrangements involving the private sector. Since 2023, the LWUA, the NWRB and the MWSS-RO have been jointly placed under the administrative oversight of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Water Resource Management Office (DENR-WRMO) (LawPhil, 2023[7]). While this provides an important step to improve co-ordination across authorities, inconsistencies and deficiencies in approaches and methodologies for economic regulation remain, due to the fragmentation of economic regulation responsibilities. Oversight of regulators (in terms of performance and coordination as institutions) and of water service providers (through the various regulators’ monitoring and enforcement mechanisms) can be inconsistent, limited and incoherent. This contributes to a regulatory regime that is insufficient to secure desired outcomes and compliance.

Oversight of regulators (in terms of performance and coordination as institutions) and of water service providers (through the various regulators’ monitoring and enforcement mechanisms) can be inconsistent and fragmented in some areas. This can affect the effectiveness of the regulatory regime in securing desired outcomes and compliance. Regulators have taken significant steps in recent years to strengthen regulatory practices, including the adoption of new NWRB policies and KPI frameworks, and openness to standardisation is increasing. Building on these developments, the broader application of risk-based and targeted approaches could further enhance regulatory effectiveness and support the efficient use of resources. These arrangements for regulatory governance impact the way in which tariffs can be designed, set and reviewed to remain fit for purpose.

Existing regulators lack autonomy, with political influence limiting regulatory stability and investment. There is no independent economic regulator for the sector. Water service providers are instead subject to different forms of oversight: regulation by designated government agencies (MWSS-RO, LWUA and NWRB), self-regulation by LGUs over LGU-run utilities and regulation through contractual arrangements, such as concession and joint venture agreements. Regulatory bodies often hold regulatory and non-regulatory functions that conflict at times. At the local level, tariff methodologies vary and may be overlooked when political pressure seeks to keep tariff levels from rising. Oversight functions for water districts have been transferred back-and-forth between regulators, impacting stability and trust. Regulators in the water supply and sanitation sector lack sufficient enforcement powers and capacity to monitor non-compliance effectively.

The fragmentation of the regulatory landscape is reflected in overlapping regulatory functions and the prevalence of non-standardised tariff structures. LGU-run utilities are effectively self-regulated, with varying and sometimes unclear tariff-setting methodologies. The operationalisation of JMC No. 2, s. 2024, which provides for ring-fencing and the establishment of Local Economic Enterprises, is expected to help address this, although implementation remains at an early stage and depends on adequate support for roll-out and capacity development. Moreover, a significant proportion of the water supply and sanitation sector is not subject to a comprehensive framework of economic regulation due to poorly defined mandates, a lack of regulatory coverage or regulatory priorities.

Different regulators are designing and implementing different regulatory solutions and methodologies for the same issues. They make isolated decisions on the collection and management of the data required to fulfil their functions and measure performance (which are sometimes interlinked or shared). Non-standardised practices distract from assessing the impact of regulation on long-term challenges, such as financial sustainability and climate resilience and complicate efforts to build regulatory stability and predictability.

Data collection and management in the water supply and sanitation sector in the country is scattered across various government agencies that carry out water-related functions. A crucial foundation of economic regulation broadly and of tariff setting in particular, is the availability of the necessary information on the sector’s performance. Comparing performance across types of service providers is difficult due to the lack of data and comparability of data, as different regulatory entities apply different data formats, definitions and performance monitoring indicators. In the absence of a central entity responsible for collecting and consolidating water-related data, this causes difficulties in the assessment of the Philippines’ water supply and sanitation services.

The practices to assess performance of service providers and the sector are multi-layered and lack the necessary data on many levels. Target setting for companies and measuring their performance with meaningful indicators are not a common practice. The use of key performance indicators (KPIs) is fragmented or not universally applied and suffers from misalignment across regulatory authorities. At the moment, as KPIs are defined by different regulatory agencies for the types of service providers they regulate, it is not possible to compare those across service providers of similar sizes. Alongside the sector context and other constraining or enabling factors, governance arrangements for economic regulation impact the way in which tariffs can be designed, set and reviewed to remain fit-for-purpose.

Given the scattered responsibilities for economic regulation of water and sanitation services, there is no single lead agency for the sector that grants and revokes licences. The licence to operate as a water supply and sanitation service provider depends on the management and business model of the entity. NWRB oversees licences for private entities and cooperatives, while LWUA oversees water districts and LGUs self-regulate unless they opt voluntarily to be regulated by NWRB. Oversight of sanitation services varies depending on the regulator and provider type.

References

[4] DENR-WRMO (2024), Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWMP), Department of Environment and National Resources - Water Resource Management Office, Manilla, https://denr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/IWMP-06252024_1.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).

[6] DPWH (2010), National Sewerage and Septage Management Program, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Manila, https://www.geoidex.com/pic-mtsp.com/mtsp002/MTSP_Resources/Septage_Mgmt_Framework/NSSMP%20Full%20Report%20(11-10-10).pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).

[7] LawPhil (2023), EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 22, April 27, 2023, https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo2023/eo_22_2023.html (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[3] NEDA (2021), Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Pasig City, Philippines, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi214382.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2024).

[1] Philippine Statistics Authority (2024), Philippine Population is Projected to be around 138.67 Million by 2055 under Scenario 2, https://psa.gov.ph/content/philippine-population-projected-be-around-13867-million-2055-under-scenario-2.

[5] Philippine Statistics Authority (2022), Highlights of the Population of the Municipality of Panglao (Based on the Results of 2020 Census of Population and Housing), Philippine Statistics Authority, https://rsso07.psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-population-municipality-panglao-based-results-2020-census-population-and-housing#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%202020%20Census,of%20Bohol's%20population%20in%202020.

[2] Philippine Statistics Authority (2022), Urban Population of the Philippines (2020 Census of Population and Housing), Population and Housing, https://psa.gov.ph/statistics/population-and-housing/node/167692 (accessed on 23 December 2024).

Notes

← 1.  1 USD = PHP 58.84

← 2.  The Listahang Tubig is a national survey of all water service providers covering all service levels - Level I or point source, Level II or communal faucets, and Level III or piped connections. More information on the Listahang Tubig can be found here: http://listahangtubig.cloudapp.net/. The database was launched in 2015 after an initial national survey.

← 3.  Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) v. Margarita A. Adala, G.R. No. 168914.

← 4.  1 USD = PHP 58.55